MovieChat Forums > Politics > Waiting for fiscal anti big government c...

Waiting for fiscal anti big government conservatives...


to start caring about a 1 trillion dollar deficit...Guys at least pretend to have some constant principles. its really sad

reply

waiting the dems who control the House to come up with a good plan for our deficit....

reply

which party has the presidency and been approving all his spending? and continues to increase the deficit and debt by giving tax cuts to the wealthy and billions in military funding?

lol come back when you have a real answer kid :)

reply

lets see not sure if are aware but this other guy called Obama was President for 8 years and his funding was also approved, he also gave huge tax cuts and billions in military funding and also gave billions to this country called Iran.

reply

I didn't like when Obama and the dems did it either. I think they are massively corrupt and pathetic corporatists for the most part. the republicans claims the dems are horrible irresponsible spenders but do the same.

like I said. come back when you have a real answer other than whataboutisms?



reply

they both do the same thing, thats no secret. I have often theorized that they are actually the same party just different names. glad we can agree on something.. :)

reply

I call them corporate puppet #1. and corporate puppet #2 with rainbow flags.

The only one I trust to change the system is Bernie. whether you agree with him on policy r not he is a man of unwavering principle who wants to get money out of politics.

This will actually help republicans and conservatives who will be able to have their voices heard, not just have their leaders (like the dems) listen to their highest donors.

reply

Just imagine the response from the right if Trump somehow got the deficit down to $650 billion like Obama did, and Bernie raised it to over $1 trillion like Trump did.

reply

lets see not sure if are aware but this other guy called Obama was President for 8 years and his funding was also approved

Obama's deficit: $650 billion
Trump's deficit: $1.2 trillion

reply

Yaaaa but but.... its cause of the republicans obamas is low and the democrats trumps is so high according to conservatives.

you can't win. its heads they win tails you lose.

reply

Those bills, along with over 400 others, are collecting dust on #MoscowMitch's desk. Call #MoscowMitch and tell him you want him to do his job! Only then will the Dem's good plan for our deficit see the light of day.

reply

I will never get over McConnell and the Senate not letting Obama nominate a Supreme Court Justice when Scalia died unexpectedly. As dirty as it gets.

reply

To think that was just the beginning....

reply

I've been asking this for the past year, and so far not one T-rumptard can come up to the plate and go to bat on this one. They all run and hide.

reply

Where are the tea-baggers now? I have NEVER gotten a good answer to that question.

reply

Here! Here! Here I am! 🤚🏻🖖🏻 What do you want to know?

reply

Where have you guys been? I don't see any of those big rallies you folks used to have every week when Obama was President. It's a conspicuous absence.

reply

Darn it! I’ve never been to one, so I missed out. I went to a Ross Perot rally...does that count? Let me think 🤔...oh, I went to the ‘92 Republican Convention in Houston. And, and...I ate dinner with Daddy Bush. It’s coming back to me. You guys need to give us more time to think due to you believing we have caca for brains. Let’s see...yeah! That’s right! I rode a bus to a G.W. Bush rally held in a hanger in Orlando. I’m sure there were other events...

reply

Nice rant. Lots of words to not address the question. But when you don't have a good answer I suppose this works.

reply

I answered in a foolish way to a foolish question! 🥱🤪

rant...VERB

“speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way” Don’t believe I was 😱 ranting!

In fact, most of your foolish diatribes don’t deserve an answer. Why would you want answers from those whom you deplore?

deplore...Verb

“feel or express strong disapproval of”

reply

What's foolish about my question? The tea baggers were all about deficits when Obama was President and now you don't hear a peep out of them.

It's a perfectly fair question.

reply

It was the way it was phrased, but if you insist...and, no...I’m not Joe the Plumber! 🙅🏼‍♀️ On second thought wasn’t it you who keeps reminding everyone Obama isn’t the President any longer? You instructed us to cease bringing up past administrations.

reply

So you just aren't going to answer, LMAO. I'm asking where the tea baggers are now that a Republican is in the WH. Now. Present day.

Try to keep up.

reply

I don’t know where they are! 🤷🏼‍♀️Does that answer your query? I’m not going to debate you on the following. You can do research as well or better than me.

President Bush added $5.849 trillion, the second-greatest dollar amount. This was a 101% increase, the fourth-largest percentage increase. Bush launched the War on Terror in response to the 9/11 attacks. It includes the War in Afghanistan, at $1.1 trillion, and the Iraq War, at $1 trillion. Military spending rose to a record level of $800 billion a year.3

Bush fought two recessions.

2001 recession: Initiated the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.
2008 financial crisis: Approved a $700 billion bailout package for banks.
Both Presidents Bush and Obama also had to contend with higher mandatory spending for Social Security and Medicare.

The deficit & debt soared under Obama. When Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10.626 trillion. When he left office on Jan. 20, 2017, it was $19.947 trillion.

Barack Obama: Under President Obama, the national debt grew the most dollar-wise. He added $8.588 trillion. This 74% increase was the fifth-largest.3 Obama fought the Great Recession with an $831 billion economic stimulus package.4 The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion.

Obama increased defense spending to $855 billion.5 He sponsored the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It was designed to reduce the debt by $143 billion over 10 years. But these savings didn't show up until the later years.

Guess who:

“The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality.”

reply

Don't know? Alrighty then. Thanks for wasting my time.

reply

I didn’t waste your time. That was your own doing! You like to play games and when people don’t acquiesce to your demands you get snarky. In fact you can sure dish it out, but you can’t take it. You have a chip on your shoulder! You dismiss facts and prevaricate. You know...you can really be a p***k! OMGosh! I was just describing Trump! LOL! You’re akin to Trump! 😱I’m going back to the potato salad thread!

reply

The tea baggers are not interested in deficits now that a Republican is President. If they cared about deficits they would be out there having rallies. It's quite transparent and you danced around the facts this whole conversation. Very cowardly on your part.

reply

I’m too damn old to be cowardly. And I’ve got a pink Pug .22 Magnum with laser to prove it! 😡

reply

Right on. I was squirrel hunting with a 22 mag when a whitetail came walking past one time. Lets just say the deer didn't make it.

reply

Damn, I miss the squirrel in gravy my mom HAD to prepare. I also liked fried squirrel. I emphasized *had* because my mom was from New Jersey and Dad was a crack shot hunter from Kentucky. Poor thing prepared it, but never ate it. 😟 It’s funny there’s a lot of different food I ate back then, but wouldn’t eat now!

My first firearm was a .380 Taurus (of course pink). I holstered it inside my waistband, but age caught up with me. Arthritis & loss of strength hit so I couldn’t chamber it any longer. I didn’t want to carry a heavy revolver so I found a used made of steel Beretta with a top load for one Hornady hollow point. After firing that first one the magazine would chamber. But, it was so darn heavy! Large grip also. I was aware firearm manufacturers were producing smaller revolvers due to a high demand for CWs. I located my Pug at a local gun store.

Since I had a CWP from Florida I was able to purchase and take it with me. The gun control crazies aren’t aware of how the system works. You don’t lay down funds and walk away with a firearm without being checked! My fingerprints are in the system. Recently MS passed a law which permits women to carry without a permit. Also, we now have open carry, but I’ve noticed only one person, other than law enforcement, using open carry. I asked him if he had run into people giving him flack over it. A few times he answered, with one threatening to call police. He told them to go ahead and pointed to his hat which had SECURITY on it.

reply

So you can conceal carry without a license? We have open carry here as well. I don't personally however. Plus some dumbasses in my area give it a bad name by carrying their AR-15 into Walmart and similar dumb places. My cousin works for a local dept(Detective) and his co-workers are not very fond of these guys. They cause panic and when that happens the danger gets ramped up.

I have a few guns around but my father was the gun guy. If I travel with one it's a Glock 17. If 17+1 rounds can't get me out of trouble I'm f'd.

As far as squirrel I usually pressure cook it and make a stew with milk and butter, as you would with salmon or oysters.

reply

Now that’s plain stupidity...carrying an AR-15 anywhere except for hunting or going to a gun range! 🙄 “Look at me wrong Mister, and you’re in a world of hurt!” It’s idiots like that which bring out the gun control crazies! They’ll be after your 17+1 magazine!

My husband has a Glock 23 40 cal, but he is unable to rack it any longer. It’s terrible we lose the strength in our hands as we age.

You are aware some posters are most likely gagging about now...cooking and eating squirrel! “But, but how can you eat something related to a rat?” The same way I enjoy eating lobster...which is related to a *roach*!

reply

I wouldn't even hunt with an AR-15. Call me old-fashioned. That's unfortunate about the grip strength. Keeping a stress ball around to squeeze on might help, although I'm sure your doctor(s) have given you good advice.

I haven't had squirrel in years but would not hesitate to eat it again. It is much more important to me how the meat was cleaned/stored etc. And yes, lobsters are sea bugs.

reply

None of my family would use an AR-15 for hunting, but other people do. My family has always used a rifle with a scope or shotgun. My husband became an ex-hunter when we bought our Florida acreage. After we enjoyed seeing all the wildlife roaming on our land, turkeys, rabbits, fox squirrels, deer, quail, etc., he couldn’t kill anymore. Instead of us eating them...we began feeding them with deer corn and peanuts! They became used to us feeding them so they would venture close to get the bread, peanuts & corn. I learned rabbits like bread! When we shook the peanut bag, the squirrels came running. I miss my wildlife friends.

reply

That's awesome. I haven't hunted in many years. I also have many animal friends around me. I feed squirrels and birds, and I see egrets and herons all the times. Last week my yard flooded(live on the coast) and I had 2 pairs of mallards swimming around. I also have an opossum living under my house. I don't think I would enjoy hunting at this point in my life, although I love the taste of wild boar and since they are a problem in some states(including yours) I would have no problem harvesting a couple for the freezer.

reply

I now live on the MS Gulf Coast, so I don’t see much wildlife. Except for the seagulls who have great aim for our house, steps and vehicles which are under the house! Katrina wiped all the squirrels, but I see maybe 1 or 2.

As far as wild boar goes, you can have it! We attended an outdoor wedding & boar was served. I became so ill I thought I was going to die! I don’t like fresh ham either. At one time on our property, we were so over run by the them (they can be vicious) we had to call a trapper. The neighbors became upset because the piglets were so cute! Tough!!

I’m out of text space...down to a little box, so we’ll have to write farewell to writing about long ago better days and our wildlife friends. And, did you notice we came together for awhile. We just need to stay away from politics. I’m not a bad person because I vote differently from you. My lifelong friend (60 years) whom I stay with when I’m in FL is a Dem, the whole family is, but we leave it at the door. Her son-in-law is like you, very anti. We were having problems with her tv, so when he stopped by he reset the rcvr, tv, etc. He remarked “I know what was wrong with the tv.” while looking at me. I replied “What?” “You were watching Fox News!” I wanted to throw something at him!

reply

TTYL.

reply

The tea-baggers have been low-key the past three years. T-rump seems to want nothing to do with them, and Sarah Palin went radio-silent once T-rump took office and didn't give her a position in his admin, despite her ass kissing early on. So once she went back to oblivion, so did the tea-baggers.

reply

Good riddance to her and the tea baggers.

reply

There you go! The tea baggers did nothing wrong. At least they didn’t go berserk and assault people like your ilk is doing! I will inquire of you, why do you disparage them so much. What’s wrong with citizens attempting to hold their government accountable?

reply

Where have they been the past three years under T-rump? Why aren't they holding government responsible ? Why isn't Palin speaking out over T-rump's record high deficit these days ?

reply

I can think of one good reason. Trump doesn’t shut-up long enough in order for the tea baggers to have their voices heard! 🤭 But, you do have a point.

reply

The House controls the purse strings. Deficits unsurprisingly went down when Republicans took control of that chamber after 2010 and have just as unsurprisingly gone up since Democrats assumed control after 2018. Both parties are to blame but clearly the evidence shows that Republicans retaking the House this fall would at least reduce the problem.

reply

LOL spending went down as stimulus spending was less needed you dumb fuck. But hey when factual reality is inconvenient to your opinion. just ignore the relevant facts!

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

funny how Clinton brought down deficit spending under first a democrat controlled house of representatives, then a republican one. Then how under a republican one Bush yet again ballooned spending.HMM weird


also it was Reagan who raised spending in 1981 and 1982 raising the deficit from 40 billion in 1979 to 79 and 128 then 201 billion

trumps first year in office with a republican controlled house deficit spending ballooned 80 billion. again in 2018 trumps federal budget rose it another 110 billion.


Again. when facts are inconvenient! ignore them!

"clearly the evidence shows that Republicans retaking the House this fall would at least reduce the problem."

No it wouldn't because the evidence clearly shows this is factually untrue

reply

I see you've met Moviechat's piñata, LMAO. Have fun busting him up. Maybe he'll shoot some candy out of his ass.

reply

😄 Oh look, it's Buckyboy, one of my favorite punching bags who was so sick of getting stomped in debates that he pretended to put me on "ignore" and avoid me before being caught lying about it in humiliating fashion.... https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5e46fc34f1326a35b50c0a8a/Trump-is-a-racist-Here-is-a-history-of-this-IN-HIS-OWN-WORDS?reply=5e4726b7f1326a35b50c0ce6 .....and is now so butthurt that he just follows me around posting weak BS like that because he can't muster anything substantive.

reply

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

reply

Suuuure, LOL. Except Clinton's attempt to socialize one-fifth of the US economy was blocked even by the Democrat majority House, though that radical, unAmerican effort still led to the GOP taking control of Congress in 1994 and blocking any huge spending measures he wanted to pursue afterwards. And Democrats controlled the House throughout the Reagan presidency. And Obama's huge spending desires, which went well beyond his failed "stimulus" partisan kick back scheme, were largely blocked by a Republican Congress after 2011. And the recent surge in federal spending since Democrats took the House isn't during a recession but a strong economy thanks to Trump's policies.

It's simply a function of both parties getting most of their spending priorities in a rough compromise born of divided government. Here are the facts, sans partisan commentary like the spin on your biased site, you stupid hack:

Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP

1983 - 5.9% (Reagan's tax cut actually went into effect)
1988 - 3.0%

2006 - 1.8% (Republican House)
2008 - 3.1% (Democrat House)
2009 - 9.8% (Democrat Congress and White House)
2010 - 8.7% (Democrat Congress and White House)

Republicans Take the House

2011 - 8.4%
2018 - 3.8%

Democrats Take the House

2019 - 4.6%
2020 - 4.9% (estimated)


https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hist_fy21.pdf

Not that you actually give a crap about the deficit, as a Bernie Bro socialist. But others here might.

reply

OHHHHHHHHH so now its changed to "Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP"


hahahahaha you sad embarrassment. you ant have an honest conversation because as soon as you are trapped like a rat. you move the goalpost

"Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP

1983 - 5.9% (Reagan's tax cut actually went into effect)
1988 - 3.0%"

1984 $185 4.5%
1985 $212 4.8%
1986 $221 4.8%

look at that. big deficits LOL. again nice when you an cherry pick and jump straight from 1983 to 1988 because the time in-between is inconvenient for you


"Republicans Take the House

2011 - 8.4%
2018 - 3.8%"

yes year over year deficit spending is reduced as recession stimulus spending winds down LOL. HAHAHAHAHA I love the cherry picking though.

I love though how when dems are in the presidency its their fault for big spending. when they are in congress its their fault for big spending. its heads I win tails you lose. No matter what the numbers are republicans can just blame others

reply


hahahahaha you sad embarrassment. you ant have an honest conversation because as soon as you are trapped like a rat. you move the goalpost

Ha Ha, I've noticed that you go full troll the instant you realize you've lost the debate. This time it only took two replies.
OHHHHHHHHH so now its changed to "Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP"

Just like your own source, moron. 😄 Why not?
look at that. big deficits LOL. again nice when you an cherry pick and jump straight from 1983 to 1988 because the time in-between is inconvenient for you

No, that was just for space reasons, and I've posted a lot more facts than you have. The point is that the deficit ratio generally declined after the Reagan policies went into effect, contrary to your claim. These are the most up to date official numbers (not sure what source your partisan blog is using):

1983 - 5.9%
1984 - 4.7%
1985 - 5.0%
1986 - 4.9%
1987 - 3.1%
1988 - 3.0%


It would have declined even faster with a Republican House.
yes year over year deficit spending is reduced as recession stimulus spending winds down LOL.

And while Republicans just happen to control the House, LOL. More pertinently, let's examine the last few years.

2017 - 3.5%
2018 - 3.8% (small uptick)

Democrats Take the House

2019 - 4.6% (big uptick)


I'm not the one cherry-picking. ;) Like I said, both parties are to blame, but if Republicans are bad Democrats are much worse.



reply

"Ha Ha, I've noticed that you go full troll the instant you realize you've lost the debate. This time it only took two replies. "

its a fact. you couldn't back up the deficit numbers so you immediately changed it to ratio of debt to gpd lol. and I called you out for it. I guess that's trolling? lol

"No, that was just for space reasons, and I've posted a lot more facts than you have. The point is that the deficit ratio generally declined after the Reagan policies went into effect, contrary to your claim. These are the most up to date official numbers (not sure what source your partisan blog is using): "

It didn't though decline at all lol.

1977 2.5%
1978 2.5%
1979 1.5%
1980 2.6%
1981 2.4%
1982 3.8%

wait no sorry you are right it did decline... if you only count the first and last year. and ignore all the years previous to it. LOL this is called context. which you hate because it doesn't prove your narrative.

"it would have declined even faster with a Republican House."

you have a time machine? you re going to prove the what if to me? lol

"I'm not the one cherry-picking. ;) Like I said, both parties are to blame, but if Republicans are bad Democrats are much worse. "

that's your entire modus operandi. deficit spending is just slightly under recession stimulus spending levels. again you are a joke. this is the presidents budget approved by a republican senate and democrat house.

reply

deficit spending is just slightly under recession stimulus spending levels.

LOL!

2009 - 9.8%
2019 - 4.6%


Well it's nowhere near that bad yet (fortunately we have a Republican president and Senate), but as I showed, the bottom line is that it increased far more with the Democrat House this past year than it did under the Republican House the year before. That's the only variable that changed, not control of the White House or Senate.

People who truly care about the deficit should prefer conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats like Pelosi running things.
you couldn't back up the deficit numbers so you immediately changed it to ratio of debt to gpd lol. and I called you out for it. I guess that's trolling?

You whined about it without explaining why. That's trolling. Again, your own source uses deficit (I didn't mention "debt"; let me know if you need me to explain the difference to you) as a percentage of GDP, and that's a standard metric. What else would you prefer? Nominal dollars? Real (inflation adjusted) dollars? You haven't said because I already destroyed your narrative and you slipped into pure troll mode.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to prove with the 1977-82 list, LOL. Talk about meaningless cherry-picking. You're a joke. Again, I started at 1983 because your dishonest source tagged Reagan's tax cuts to the beginning of his presidency, when the supply side cuts didn't really go into effect until 1983. It's worth noting that the deficit generally declined from there since you raised Reagan.





reply

"LOL!

2009 - 9.8%
2019 - 4.6%

Well it's nowhere near that bad yet (fortunately we have a Republican president and Senate), but as I showed, the bottom line is that it increased far more with the Democrat House this past year than it did under the Republican House the year before. That's the only variable that changed, not control of the White House or Senate. "


yes.... stimulus spending vs a normal economy. are you really this fucking stupid?

I feel embarrassed for you.


"I'm not sure what you're even trying to prove with the 1977-82 list, LOL. Talk about meaningless cherry-picking. You're a joke. Again, I started at 1983 because your dishonest source tagged Reagan's tax cuts to the beginning of his presidency, when the supply side cuts didn't really go into effect until 1983. It's worth noting that the deficit generally declined from there since you raised Reagan. "

which party had control of the presidency and senate and congress??? oh right it was the Democrats! and what happened to the ratio? super low. lower than most of Reagans years.

again you don't know the facts. you cherry pick and then ignore ones inconvenient to you

you're a sad sad loser man. you're truly pathetic. I gave the other years to show context of how it was low then went high.


reply

Yep, you're in complete troll mode now. You're upset that I showed the deficit jumped far more once Pelosi's Democrats took the House than it had when the House was under Republican control and the other variables were the same. But it's not my fault you're a moron. You should be used to losing debates by now.

Both parties are bad on this, but clearly blame for deficit spending falls more on Pelosi's liberal Democrats and establishment RINOs than "anti-big government conservatives".

reply

Lets take a look. republican president. and democratic senate and congresss

1969 (0.3%)
1970 0.3%
1971 2.0%
1972 1.8%
1973 1.0%
1974 0.4%
1975 3.1%
1976 3.9%
1977 2.5%

and around 81 when the republicans take the presidency and senate

1982 3.8%
1983 5.6%
1984 4.5%
1985 4.8%
1986 4.8%


well what about the Carter years when the dems controlled all three basically

1977 2.5%
1978 2.5%
1979 1.5%
1980 2.6%
1981 2.4%

notice a trend retard?

reply

LOL! Your cherry-picking is hilarious, you pathetic loser. I'm still waiting for you to try to spin this away, moron:

2017 - 3.5%
2018 - 3.8% (small uptick)

Democrats Take the House

2019 - 4.6% (big uptick)


The only variable that changed was Democrats taking the House. Did the deficit get worse or better because of that?

I'm not sure what you're even trying to show with the 1960s/70s stuff. You're in meltdown mode. Nixon was the most liberal Republican president next to Hoover (far from a conservative, he said "We're all Keynesians now", you ignoramus) and Democrats dominated Congress during his presidency, but its funny how you keep dishonestly chopping up the Reagan record.

1983 - 5.9% (supply side tax cut goes into effect, facilitating economic boom)
1984 - 4.7%
1985 - 5.0%
1986 - 4.9%
1987 - 3.1%
1988 - 3.0%


https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hist_fy21.pdf

reply

"your cherry picking"

As I give you years from 1969-1981 every single year


IM done with you. another emabrassing showing from the cuckservatives.

hahhahaahhaha how sad man.

and who proposed the budget for 2018?

hahahahah now Nixons a liberal. omg man. please stop embarrassing yourself hhahahahahahahahahah.

enjoy your pathetic life getting constantly owned

reply

Yep, poor Jlaws is forced to surrender after being owned again.

2017 - 3.5%
2018 - 3.8% (small uptick)

Democrats Take the House

2019 - 4.6% (big uptick)


You're welcome for the free education, you pathetic moron. 😀

reply

Jlaw - provides two decades of continues deficit ratios as evidence "nope the republicans actually a liberal!!!!!!! cherry picking data!!!!"

krl97 -lol provides one uptick "SEE IM RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

lol its heads you win tails I lose because you can't actually be consistent. facts are ignored when inconvenient then cherry picked. if a dems got the presidency its his fault. if a republican is its the houses. if dems have the house and rep president its the dems fault.
also it was trumps budget that the dems and republicans approved. again. facts hurt

hahah Keith enjoy your pathetic life. another unmanning. are you sure you aren't into public humiliation?

reply

Poor Jlaws, so stung by your embarrassing defeat that you prove yourself a liar by replying again after getting frustrated and claiming to be "done with" me...and you lie again by denying that I posted lots of historical data above refuting your absurd position as anyone can see, while you never posted "two decades of continues deficit ratios" (sic) you, stupid clown. You omitted key years.

You admit you have no response for the fact I posted that deficit spending surged since Democrats took the House last year, the only variable that changed. You certainly failed to support your idiotic claim that "conservatives" are somehow to blame for the rising deficit rather than a coalition of big spending Democrats and Republicans (especially Democrats). You have been unmanned.


reply

you re a sad loser cuckservative. we both know it.

hahaha provides 20 years of data and im "cherry picking"

you give 2009 vs 2019 and claim you aren't lol

reply

Liar.

Deficit

2017 - 3.5%
2018 - 3.8% (small uptick)

Democrats Take the House

2019 - 4.6% (big uptick)


What a said loser Jlaws is, wallowing in his failed thread. Tell me more about how "conservatives" are somehow more to blame for the current rising deficit than liberal Democrats are, you pathetic moron. 😄

reply

again. im sorry you are a sad sad loser man. what's it like being an incel?

I guess 20 years of data is too much for you to take in all at once hahahahahahhahaha.

so pathetic man. do you even remember what pussy feels like?

reply

Yep, like I said when you realize you've lost the debate you go full troll mode, loaded with projection.

So is that it? Are you completely done or do you have any other substantive point to make?

reply

hahah 20 years is too much for you LOL

reply

Keith gives me

"2009 - 9.8%
2019 - 4.6%"

I give 20 years in a row

"cherrypicking!!!!!!"

reply

So you can't count to 20, and you have no more point. Got it.

reply

hahahahahahaahha

Keith gives me

"2009 - 9.8%
2019 - 4.6%"

I give 20 years of information in a row

"cherrypicking!!!!!!"


ill be posting this on all your comments

reply

List the "20 years...in a row" you claim to have posted, Susan. 😄

After I'm done mocking your inability to count, we can discuss its irrelevance to the topic. By contrast I listed 6 consecutive years showing the effects of Reagan's actual tax policy, several years in the 2000s-2010s showing the radical deficit spending the most recent time Democrats have fully controlled Congress and the White House, and the last few years showing spending spiking after Democrats took the House, which is what really matters to this topic.

reply

Keith gives me

"2009 - 9.8%
2019 - 4.6%"

I give 20 years in a row

"cherrypicking!!!!!!"

hahahah so embarrassing

reply

And krl goes down in a bloody mess of failure and embarrassment once again.

Go ahead, Jlaw - take your well deserved victory lap around this one. You deserve it - and the board members are cheering you on!

reply

That's what I thought. You can't even count to 20. How embarrassing.

Now, like poor Doggiedaddy, who gets destroyed every time, you're so butthurt over losing debates to me that you're following me around to other threads mindlessly backslapping anyone you perceive to be arguing with me regardless of the facts, desperately looking for revenge and validation.

All three of you (Buckyboy too, who keeps lying about having me on "ignore", lol) are a collection of losers with shit reading comprehension and knowledge bases whose constant defeats have left you obsessed and fixated on me.

How pathetic. 😄

reply

lol neckbeard Keith. sad loser

reply

Like I said long ago...

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5e474edff1326a35b50c0f09/Waiting-for-fiscal-anti-big-government-conservatives?reply=5e48222856e3174e2a0bf06b

...you go full troll and start tossing out drivel projection once you know you've lost the debate.

reply

[deleted]

😄 Thank you for proving me right.

reply

That you re an insecure loser? "what drivel!!" lol.

go start a thread saying how female superhores should be replaced by men because of the "femanazis!!"

reply

😄

reply

do it man. then write on 4 chan how mean the liberals were to you

reply

😄

reply

that's what I thought beta cuck

reply

😄 Still proving me right with every reply.

reply

again whose budget was it kid? oh right trumps lol

only a cuckservative could blame dems for a republican budget supported by half the house lol

reply

Actually, as I explained earlier, lately it's been compromises where both parties in the House got most of their big spending priorities. Some examples:

"It also included funding for a slew of programs and Democratic priorities, including $7.6 billion to fund the 2020 census, increases in funding for the National Science Foundation, NASA and climate research through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Democrats secured $425 million for election security grants ahead of the 2020 election. The bill also included funds to digitize $24 billion worth of uncollected bonds to help pay them out to bondholders who never collected....

“With this bill, we have lived up to that promise by making historic investments For The People,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.). “I am so proud that we are able to do so much good for children and families across the country and around the world.”

The package invested in a slew of social programs, such as early education, jobs training and veterans. It added $2.6 billion to the National Institutes of Health, and funds programs on a slew of health initiatives ranging from HIV to cancer to opioid addiction..

The bill would provide $25 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health for gun violence research, a big win for Democrats.

It also provide a 3.1 percent pay raise for federal civilian employees,""


https://thehill.com/policy/finance/474925-house-approves-massive-spending-bill

And to correct your ignorant op, conservatives have already been complaining about it.

"The House Freedom Caucus also opposed the bill, arguing it added to the deficit and failed to provide adequate funding for border security."

And...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/alexnitzberg/2019/12/17/rep-chip-roy-blasts-legislation-that-congress-will-likely-pass-this-week-n2558163

reply

Keith gives me

"2009 - 9.8%
2019 - 4.6%"

I give 20 years in a row

"cherrypicking!!!!!!"


LOL!

reply

LOL.

reply

Let's check...

Deficit

2017 - 3.5%
2018 - 3.8% (small uptick)

Democrats Take the House

2019 - 4.6% (big uptick)


Yep. You still lose, Susan. 😀

reply

Keith gives me

"2009 - 9.8%
2019 - 4.6%"

I give 20 years in a row

"cherrypicking!!!!!!"


HAHAHAHAHAH 20 years of data is cherrypicking. a single year isnt.

oh and republicans control 2/3 of the executive and legislature. LOL

reply

LOLOLOLOL!

reply

Did you ever figure out which "20 years" you allegedly posted? You can't even count, LOL!

reply

u are trying sooo hard this is the best

reply

Federal Deficit as a Percentage of GDP

2006 - 1.8% (Republican CONGRESS)
2007 - 1.1% (Democrat CONGRESS)*********************************************
2008 - 3.1% (Democrat CONGRESS)
2009 - 9.8% (Democrat Congress and White House)
2010 - 8.7% (Democrat Congress and White House)

Republicans Take the House

2011 - 8.4%
2018 - 3.8%

.............

Where to begin...

Firstly, this data is in pages 357-358 of that link.

Probably the best point (using your numbers) is that in 2018 the figure was 3.8% (after 9+ years of economic expansion) and in 2008 (an entire year of contraction) is was 3.1%.

Second best point: in 2007 it was 1.1% (I found that figure for you.) Lower than 1.8% (2006)

Unfortunately I can't quantify the number, so you can call it bullshit and I can't defend it, but the hundreds of billions of dollars that went to TARP, AIG, General Motors, etc. went OUT 2008 (2007?) to 2010 and came back IN after 2010. So Obama gets tagged for the OUT and the GOP gets credited when it comes IN.

Also, I learned in high school government that every bill has to pass the House AND the Senate AND the President... some drivel about checks and balances... but I didn't go to James Earl Ray Memorial High School.


reply

Unfortunately I can't quantify the number, so you can call it bullshit and I can't defend it, but the hundreds of billions of dollars that went to TARP, AIG, General Motors, etc. went OUT 2008 (2007?) to 2010 and came back IN after 2010. So Obama gets tagged for the OUT and the GOP gets credited when it comes IN.

Um...Bush was president in 2007/08. Obama took over in 2009, so you just made the opposite of the point you wanted to. Thanks though, I guess.

reply

Do I have to post the link to the story that TARP was signed by Bush in 2008? (And yes Senator Obama voted FOR it. And the "Kenyan Communist Muslim" also voted for Telecom Immunity.)

I did some digging a few years back about all this stuff and it seems that all of this stuff (except something like $10 billion) was paid back before 2015.

So using your numbers:

2007 - 1.1% (Democrat CONGRESS) after 6+ years of economic expansion
2016 - 3.2% (Republican CONGRESS) after 7+ years of economic expansion.

Or this way:

https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=01&startYear=2011&endMonth=12&endDay=31&endYear=2016

National Debt January 1, 2011 $14 trillion
National Debt December 31, 2016 $20 trillion

Your GOP House added $6 trillion to the debt NOT COUNTING the close to $1 trillion recovered from the bailouts in that period.

reply

No, TARP just authorized spending at the administration's discretion. You can't absolve Obama from spending he chose to do, especially when, as you say, he voted for the original legislation as Senator anyway, LOL. But TARP was just a small portion of Obama's trillion+ annual deficits.

From your own source:
Federal Debt Jan 20, 2009 -$10.6 trillion
Federal Debt Dec. 31, 2010 - $14 trillion

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=20&startYear=2009&endMonth=12&endDay=31&endYear=2010

Democrats added 3.6 trillion to the debt in just the TWO YEARS(!) they fully controlled the government. If Republicans hadn't partially regained power Obama might have added $15 trillion to the debt instead of $10 trillion.

Your spin fails.

So using your numbers:

2007 - 1.1% (Democrat CONGRESS) after 6+ years of economic expansion
2016 - 3.2% (Republican CONGRESS) after 7+ years of economic expansion.

LOL! More like:

2007 - 1.1% Deficit (Republican President, Democrat Congress), after 4 years of Republicans controlling both, 6 years of Republicans controlling at least the Presidency and the House, 12 years of continuous Republican House control (purse strings), and relatively strong economic growth in the mid-2000s.
2016 - 3.3% Deficit (Democrat President, Republican Congress), after 1 year of Republicans fully controlling Congress, with a divided government following full Democrat control from 2009-2010 (record deficits), Democrat House control from 2007-2010, and 8 years of economic stagnation measured as the worst "recovery" in US history.

reply

Here's a good page on the bailouts.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

This says that $390B + $364B ($754B Total) was RECEIVED.

It doesn't say WHEN it was received

BUT if you want to make the spreadsheet the detail is there.

For Example

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/158-fannie-mae

Fannie Mae paid back +/- $140B March 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016

On the other hand...

Fannie Mae also borrowed +/- $30B from February 2011 to February 2012...

I'm still betting that your GOP house spent that $6,000 billion PLUS that $754 billion from 2011 to 2016.

reply

Propublica is a leftist activist group and it doesn't seem like you're posting anything relevant from it or even contradicting me anyway, so I'll just point out that you completely ignored the facts I posted above annihilating your previous claims.

I'm still betting that your GOP house spent that $6,000 billion PLUS that $754 billion from 2011 to 2016.

Again, you're ignoring that Democrats controlled most of the federal government then with the White House and (for most of that time) the Senate. And again, you don't know how TARP worked. Congress authorized it but actual funds were spent by the Treasury Department at the administration's discretion.

"TARP allowed the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled assets," defined as "(A) residential or commercial obligations will be bought, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress".[4]

In short, this allows the Treasury to purchase illiquid, difficult-to-value assets from banks and other financial institutions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Administrative_structure


And the authorization was actually cut roughly in half to $475 billion, of which $426.4 billion was actually spent.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/troubled-asset-relief-program-tarp.asp

TARP was only a small percentage of Obama's record shattering deficits.

reply

“Sanders to Introduce Single-Payer Bill – How Much Will It Cost?”

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/sanders-introduce-single-payer-bill-how-much-will-it-cost

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/current_revenue

What is the Total US Government Revenue?
In FY 2020, total US government revenue, federal, state, and local, is “guesstimated” to be $7.22 trillion. Federal revenue is budgeted at $3.71 trillion; state revenue is “guesstimated” at $2.13 trillion; local revenue is “guesstimated” at $1.39 trillion.

“The Sanders plan would have significant benefits for the poor and others with low incomes. They would receive considerably more in health services than they do today, with no out-of-pocket costs. Their employers, however, would pay a payroll tax of 6.2 percent on their earnings. This would ultimately be shifted back onto employees—including low-income employees—in the form of lower wages. Thus, low-income workers, like other workers, would in fact bear some of the costs of financing the plan. Employer contributions to health insurance premiums would also be offset, and presumably those contributions to compensation would be turned into wages or other benefits (Blumberg 1999; Blumberg et al. 2012). Those in need of long-term care services, often a very sick population with high needs, would receive important new benefits.”

“An independent analysis of Sanders's plan conducted by the *left-leaning* Urban Institute estimated that it would cost $32 trillion over 10 years.

And those are just the financial costs. Socialized medicine's human costs are even greater. Single-payer systems the world over ration care and force patients to wait for treatment.”

Bottom line: Medicare For All would cost about $3 trillion per year. That’s almost half of the total revenue the government takes in...$7.22 trillion per year! Out of the remaining revenue we would have to fund as of 2015: Discretionary Spending $1.1 trillion & Mandatory Spending $2.45 trillion

reply

and how much do people currently pay in private premiums?

reply

Do you mean employee benefits from employers?

reply

both. individuals paying their own and business provided.

reply

The following may answer your question:

“What Does the Average Employer Spend on Employee Benefits”

https://www.griffinbenefits.com/employeebenefitsblog/what-does-the-average-employer-spend-on-employee-benefits

When my husband worked for the school system his total benefits were paid by the school board. He paid nothing for himself, but for me to have the same health, dental, vision, & drugs the premium was $300 per mo. If I also worked for the school system I wouldn’t have to pay.

There are a lot of people in this country who have the so-called “Cadillac Insurance” as we did. Educational, Union, Government, etc. I can’t recall when it’s going to occur, but Obamacare is going to tax the heck out of those plans. Or, if single-payer, Medicare For All is passed, the folks who have the “Cadillac” insurance will no longer have it...single payer wipes it out! Everyone will be tossed into the same pot...an exception may be made for the jerks who passed it!

reply

sorry but I need numbers. my point was if you combine all the money spent on personal Insurance and those provided by their jobs, how much is spent? we can see per capita healthcare spending in the USA and it is far far higher than other countries with universal healthcare.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/

the USA is at 10k per capita. Switzerland is at 8k and the rest of the developed countries hover around 5k. So double.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/in-what-ways-is-the-us-he_b_12849148?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHIa3-bPGC8rLhgH3ZzLfvaFX7jluKQNeKhmT1qeCAC8GFqNkxWd0lm0vfKT87CPM5OnsJV2kN_f7_WxVy9uNfcI5EVT-7Unc8HPD4QYV7o3XU3S7JGl86XqKUGtlln_b5oUEBI5H1SeSMZIzPvcVj0kxwDQqeTAONw6hD7z8PEo

well why is this? there are many factors but
-private healthcare discourages preventative care. If I had a weird cough or pain in my side that I hope "might go away". id rather not (and may not be able to afford) my 1000$ deductible for a stupid small pain. That pain could easily become an extremely costly procedure. compound this over millions of Americans. They may save short term as people avoid the doctors. but long term it adds trillion in costs
-the profit motive means consumers pay more than they should
-expensive administrative cost. as there are hundreds of insurance companies and 1000s of plans
-Unlike in other countries across the globe, the US government doesn't set reimbursement levels for healthcare procedures. (That's what Germany does, for example.) So everyone is free to set their own price.
-There is no transparency on unit costs across providers: even though a doctor or a hospital might charge "you" (we'll get to why I put that in quotes in a second) a factor of 3x for what the doctor next door would charge you, you have no idea that that is the case, because you can't really ask doctors and hospitals for what they will charge you.

reply

Thank you for this !

reply

If everyone has decent health care, that is a fair and compassionate society.
If some people can afford and want to pay more -- good for them !
No one deserves to be held hostage over their health care, not because it would affect the price of drugs poorly or a bunch of "undeserving" people actually have an entity that cares about them when no one else does.
Why not just issue everyone in this gun besotted nation a fire arm so they can do what they please?

reply

Numbers can be fudged, but what is more important than the actual health of the citizens in the most prosperous nation on earth? Are we merely acceptable losses while the rich get richer? Good government can figure this out, but our crappy government claims R&D is more important than actually helping real people. We have supposedly wonderful new drugs to address health problems that end up being priced far out of the reach of most of us. What's so great about that?

reply

Latest estimate has Bernie at 97 trillion in proposed spending. Let us know when a Democrat comes within 25 trillion of the current trillion dollar deficit.

You Fail again.

reply

Lol per year? or is it over decades and decades and decades?

facts> your feelings

reply

10 year projected spending. This is standard procedure when discussing federal spending.

Currently we’re projected at around 47 trillion over the next 10 years, with 11 trillion in spending, added to the national debt.

With Bernies plan we’ll get 50 trillion added to the national debt. And that’s if a miracle happens and his spending stays on budget which it won’t because govt spending always goes way over budget.

Education > your ignorance.

reply

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASHBLNOA188A

Norway has ran its first deficit in 20 years.

amazing how Sanders plan which is almost identical to a nordic model can't be met with taxes yet magically in Norway it can..

reply

If you're referring to citizens then many do care but if you're referring to federal politicians no one cares. DEMs or REPs do NOT care.

I repeat, DEMS and REPS do not give one little rat's ass about the US National Debt. NONE.

If you think about it for a few minutes you will realize why. The debt is impossible to pay back. So why try to do something that is clearly impossible. This frees them to be the inept bafoonish creeps we all hate/love/whatever.

reply

well then in the political discourse and I know this is prescriptive, republicans should never again criticize the dems are irresponsible tax and spenders and themselves as fiscally responsible.

meh that's a separate arguement

reply